Member since: Mar 11th, 2008
Jul 23rd 2010 4:30AM Microsoft -> DIRTINESSWindows XP -> YOUNG GIRL (...XP-tan?)Mac OS X -> no change...but if it's misspelled as MAC OSX -> GAY BAR (oh lawdy...)APPLE -> GRAVE (Apple needs to be in all caps or there's no change)iPhone -> Piston (bow chicka wow wowww)Steve Jobs -> LOVE JUICE (ROFL!)MacBook -> CUSTOMSfanboy -> felonysoftware -> BAREFOOTside view -> DEEP KISS
Jun 17th 2010 6:12PM The ball is really in both courts: Apple needs to decide whether or not to leave Flash support in Adobe's hands, and Adobe needs to make some software for OS X that doesn't suck, and earn Apple's trust back if they intend to stay on the Mac platform long-term.
Jun 17th 2010 5:48PM Ugh, more of this catfighting (even if, in this particular case, it's well-founded). So sick of it. I just wanna grab them both and say "You, you, make my shit work and be quiet."@Troy: You have a good point there. It's not as if requiring a simple, optional plugin installation would be such a hardship...although you can bet the blogosphere would instantly erupt in wailing and gnashing of teeth anyway. It doesn't even make sense for Apple to be shouldering the responsibility for distributing the Flash plugin anyway.
Jun 17th 2010 5:36PM Well, OK, I'm not saying everything should be released everywhere, but I just don't see smartphones and handheld gaming devices to be *direct* competitors. When I think of Nintendo releasing something for iOS, I don't see it being the same game as they'd put out for the DS; it'd be something different, more suited to the hardware (i.e. one touchscreen, no buttons), and likely much lighter-weight in terms of gameplay and content than their offerings for their own systems (duh, why would they save the best stuff for someone else?).My point isn't that they should *have* to release games for other platforms, but that it likely wouldn't be such a horribly detrimental thing for them to do. Heck, even Apple reaches out and offers software for Windows in an effort to entice people into getting the "real deal" (even if *they* happen to do an absolutely horrible job of it).I don't think the OS X analogy is quite right, because operating systems on handheld gaming devices are very appliance-like to allow you to get straight to the game without any fussing around. Nobody would really want to run DS firmware on a PSP or vice versa. Apple does, however, make OS X-exclusive software like iLife, Logic, Final Cut, etc. which would be a closer analogy to Nintendo's individual game titles. And personally, I don't think Apple would exactly be in jeopardy of going under if, say, they ported iMovie to Windows to lay the smackdown on Windows Movie Maker. Sure, keep the pro apps (and flagship Mario and Zelda titles) on their home platform, but let your entry-level products do a bit of evangelism on other platforms, too — maybe even make a little money on the side from it in the case of games.iPhones and DSes are indeed different niches, even if they have started to eat into one another a little — there's certainly a market for DSes just as there's still a huge market for dumbphones (which I think is a derogatory misnomer...they're not dumb at all, just simple).
Jun 17th 2010 1:54PM "Some" might say the iPhone is pointless, but they'd be trolling. :) If you want a pointless smartphone, maybe look at the Kin. I think everyone can agree that *that* was a "wtf were they thinking" moment for MS. (Looking back at my post, I realize I'm coming off as a haughty iPhone guy, which wasn't my intention at all. My thinking applies to whatever smartphone platform you'd like it to, since they're all capable of supporting great games.)Your second point is kind of what I'm saying, though: you totally are buying into more than a piece of hardware, you're buying into the range of software you'll be able to use with it. A smartphone is a general-purpose computer while a DS or (to a lesser extent) PSP is a specialized game device. For the physical space you sacrifice, you can do more with a smartphone, and still include tons of gaming in that.All I'm saying is that I don't think it would actually hurt Nintendo at all to release a few games for the more-than-capable smartphone platforms that are out there. Their platform exclusivity made sense in the past when they were only competing against other gaming devices (and still does make sense within that realm — no need to release Mario on the PSP!), but I suspect smartphone owners aren't as likely to see a couple of extra games as incentive enough to add on an entire second device to carry around with them, so it's not like "Mario for iPhone" would steal sales from "Mario for DS" that weren't already heading in the iPhone's direction in the first place.Anyway, I guess the SMG series must be pretty awesome to warrant dropping the dough for a new console just to play them...but I really hope you end up getting more value for your money than that, because that'd be kinda sad. Like, I dunno, getting a second toaster to use specifically with cinnamon raisin bagels? I'm clearly not that great with analogies. :P
Jun 17th 2010 12:09PM I already have an iPhone, for games *and* everything else. I'm not exactly alone in this. So, Nintendo could be making money from me and others by developing a great Mario/Zelda/whatever game suited to the iPhone, but they've decided not to. Newsflash: I'm not about to buy some chunk of Nintendo hardware just to needlessly duplicate part of my phone's functionality for the sake of one or two games. And somehow I doubt DS owners are going to ditch that platform just because Nintendo happens to release a handful of games for a different one.Ninty may not be shooting themselves in the foot right now, but they've at least got a tourniquet on it when they don't need to. I'm sick enough of the pointless competitive spite (note: not the same as competition, which is good) between Apple and Google without Nintendo acting like a vindictive five-year-old too.
Jun 11th 2010 6:50PM Sorry, I do realize there's no actual "porting" involved, just building. There are certainly Windows AIR apps around, though, if you look at how they're designed.
Jun 10th 2010 8:07PM If I wanted to run what is clearly a Windows app on a different platform (because, let's face it, nobody using AIR develops first for OS X or Linux and then ports elsewhere) and consume all my system resources doing so, I'd open up VMware or Parallels. In the end, AIR is Adobe software and it shows.
Jun 10th 2010 6:14PM Yeah...what? Did you mean to post this on a different page, maybe? Your comment could easily apply to quite a few of Seb's posts, but this particular one wasn't like that at all — I almost had to double-check who wrote it. :P Anyone who asserts that Apple isn't ridiculously behind the times in their selection of graphics hardware is deluding themselves, regardless of whether they also appreciate the things Apple does right. Apple has simply never cared about games (until recently, and even then only on iOS), and that's reflected in their computers.
Jun 10th 2010 6:02PM The "superior graphics capabilities" comment from Sebastian's friend may not have been referring to hardware at all, but rather, the Mac platform's traditional association with creative industries.The Hackintosh scene may, in fact, have brought a point of interest to Mac gaming: because people now want to get OS X running on whatever PC hardware they're able to scrounge together, great strides have been made towards making more video cards compatible with OS X. My machine (which started its life as another guy's Compaq tower) now has a nice cheap-but-capable 1GB GeForce 9500 GT which plays my Orange Box titles quite nicely on either OS. I'm sure that tricks similar to what Hackintoshers use could be (or are already?) employed to upgrade Mac Pros with better PC video cards.I certainly hope that eventually, with enough pressure, Apple will finally give in and introduce an upgradable mid-end Mac. When you think about it, the only things most people ever upgrade in their PCs (as long as their power supply is sufficient) are the hard drive, RAM, video card, and *maybe* the CPU. (I repeat: most people, not the small elite group of bleeding-edge hardware fanatics.) Apple could, with this in mind, work out a hardware design that simplifies these few upgrades and safely keeps everything else out of the way, just how they like it.Perhaps Valve's ongoing efforts to advance Mac gaming on the software end may provide the Steam pressure (groan) necessary to lift Apple off their asses and put them to work serving those of their users who want to do fun things outside of GarageBand.
Save your tabs and Panorama tab groups in Firefox 4
Amazon Appstore for Android hands-on review: Android Market is in trouble